The Evil Do-ers thread

[LBAWinOwns]

Well CiB, before doing what you want, I think that the previously banned one should pm a mod to be requested to be taken away from the list, since none previously banned seem to bother anyway.

[Double-J]

I nominate this thread to be banned...

[CiB]

Originally Posted by LBAWinOwns

Well CiB, before doing what you want, I think that the previously banned one should pm a mod to be requested to be taken away from the list, since none previously banned seem to bother anyway.

While no PM may have occured, I'd refer you to a comment made by OBrasilio earlier in the thread.

[LBAWinOwns]

Originally Posted by Double-J

I nominate this thread to be banned...

I really like rules, since then such stupid suggestions won't go through.





Oh wait, I got it now .


CiB - So, would you think you've accomplished what you wanted if private PMs will result in mods removing the individual bans if they have been outdated for 1 a month?

[CiB]

Originally Posted by LBAWinOwns

CiB - So, would you think you've accomplished what you wanted if private PMs will result in mods removing the individual bans if they have been outdated for 1 a month?

All I've actually asked for is an explanation that makes sense as to why years old bannings are kept on record anyway.

From what I've seen and read the only possible reason for keeping this information in the evil do-ers thread as opposed to as moderators only info is to prevent confusion as to recent unbannings. Thus keeping records of years old bannings in such a way merely creates clutter and makes the whole thing inefficient. There is no reason for it that I can see, and I'm not sure any of the moderators can either- otherwise they'd have said something by now thats actually relevant to cases more than a month old.

I see no reason why keeping such records for more than a month after the unbanning in that thread is productive or worth doing. I thus can see no reason why removing names a month after the unbanning should not be normal practice.

[LBAWinOwns]

You talk like it would be work to keep the records, but it's definitely not, it's work for moderators to edit the sticky and remove the record of someone being banned.

The reason why the records are kept because nobody cares about it being there, so no body cares about it, moderators might consider removing the records when the previously banned says they don't want to be hold record of.

[CiB]

Originally Posted by LBAWinOwns

You talk like it would be work to keep the records, but it's definitely not, it's work for moderators to edit the sticky and remove the record of someone being banned.

The reason why the records are kept because nobody cares about it being there, so no body cares about it, moderators might consider removing the records when the previously banned says they don't want to be hold record of.

No, I'm aware it would take work to remove a name a month after the unbanning. Not very much as far as I know. However, the thread is being edited when new bannings occur, so why not edit it slightly more frequently? Furthermore, as pointed out previously, keeping now irrelevant information in that thread is untidy. By editing it, the moderators would be keeping the thread clean, plus it isn't like that would be a lot of work.

Ok, to recap so far the arguments I've seen against keeping records of years old bannings where the world and his dog can read them are:

1) No one on the list has complained- except OBrasilio a while back.
2) It would be to much work(?)

It seems to me that no one can explain why (beyond masterly inaction) these records are being kept.

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by CiB

It seems to me that no one can explain why (beyond masterly inaction) these records are being kept.

Because humans are fond of records, and thus, we feel the need to carry on that tradition.

FTW, I really don't understand why you picked this issue to quarrel with.

[CiB]

Originally Posted by Double-J

Because humans are fond of records, and thus, we feel the need to carry on that tradition.

FTW, I really don't understand why you picked this issue to quarrel with.

FYI, had I picked an issue to 'quarrel over' you would have known about it. This isn't it.

Ok, so it is masterly inaction then?

For the unpteenth time, I'm not aksing about the keeping of the records, it's keeping them where non moderators can read them. Keeping them as an example for modarators of what-came-before make sperfect sense, but why does joe public get to read them? Beyond masterly inaction?

[Medur]

CiB is doing it for the lulz.

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by CiB

For the unpteenth time, I'm not aksing about the keeping of the records, it's keeping them where non moderators can read them. Keeping them as an example for modarators of what-came-before make sperfect sense, but why does joe public get to read them? Beyond masterly inaction?

Why does joe public get to read them?

I'll tell you.

Let's go back, way back when, to the Bifter saga, when there were a variety of malcontents who felt the need to spam, send viruses to other members, and commandeer the #lba channel. Who were the victims of such abuse? The very members of this forum.

I would think, if for no other reason then, those same members deserve to have the history be "public." I find it funny though that you act as if these are some sort of sealed indictments or court documents. It's a record of warnings and bans.

Why is it public? For the same reason other sticky threads are stickied. Because it contains information that is valuable to the members of this forum.

[Battler]

- Double-J: Well, then that information should at least be impartial, and not slanted, as it is right now in certain cases.
Also, it should be only held about those people, who don't come here anymore. Those, who come, like me, are bothered very much by that information there, because we stopped doing that shit already, so we don't like being reminded of what we've done.

[Kitarii]

I'm pretty bored of this whole debate and I've been avoiding it but whatever.
OBras' line in that thread is a little too biased personally against him, or it seems like it.
So there should be perhaps a more neutral overview of why he was banned.

Otherwise I agree with everything DJ said, and CiB, you should just accept the fact that no one else is bothered about this except you, and you virtually only post in this thread anyways, so just leave it alone already!

[CiB]

Originally Posted by Double-J

Why is it public? For the same reason other sticky threads are stickied. Because it contains information that is valuable to the members of this forum.

Really? Can you point me to a bit in the 'no longer banned' section that actually is valuable to anyone but a moderator who wants to see examples of whats been done before? The point I've been making is that it is not valuable at all to know who is no longer banned for some minor offence a number of years ago. See, Double J, you've once again answered the question of 'why does that thread exist', in response to me asking 'Why are we keeping records of ancient offences that have been forgiven now? Why doesn't this forum let bygones be bygones?'.

-Ricochet, yeah I'm pretty bored too. I honestly had no intention of having any form of four page debate on this matter- I hoped that when I made that first post what would happen is that someone would appear and give an explanation as to why that the chaff in that thread was being kept so near the wheat. Thats yet to happen, which is somewhat frustrating to be honest.

Also, Ricochet, don't assume that the only place you hear me talking is the only place where I'm listening. I read most threads on the MBN forum, as pointed out waaaay back, I don't post often.

-Medur, erm, whats a "lul"?

[Kobold]

While complaining about a few words too much in a thread few people read, you're adding quite a lot of words here. Is it really that important to argue about this? Could we not just leave it? It doesn't matter too much.

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by OBrasilo

- Double-J: Well, then that information should at least be impartial, and not slanted, as it is right now in certain cases.

I guess you missed my earlier post where I brought up this very issue...?

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by CiB

Really? Can you point me to a bit in the 'no longer banned' section that actually is valuable to anyone but a moderator who wants to see examples of whats been done before?

Well, I know I used it during my self-defense (along with Medur and Anakin) when I refuted the infractions system .

So, certainly its valuable to those who are responding to punishments or bans that are not following the general rule of thumb.

The point I've been making is that it is not valuable at all to know who is no longer banned for some minor offence a number of years ago.

Value has got nothing to do with it. Hell, if we're going in terms of "value," you might as well get rid of the Off-Topic and Members forums entirely, because, after all, they have no real *value* in comparison to the General forum.

It has everything to do with keeping a record of who is who, and the history of this forum.

See, Double J, you've once again answered the question of 'why does that thread exist', in response to me asking 'Why are we keeping records of ancient offences that have been forgiven now? Why doesn't this forum let bygones be bygones?'.

Who says we don't let bygones be bygones? If anything, the record showing people who were banned but allowed back is a testament to the tolerance of the forum.

Christ, you're the one who is making an issue out of a non-issue, and it is especially striking considering that, as Ric mentioned, you barely post outside of this one thread.

This is to me, and should be for everyone, a non-issue.

[CiB]

Ok, Double-J, you've spent your last two posts here stating that value has nothing to do with it and that the thread is valuable.

Now, I agree that it could be useful to people who feel they've been unfairly punished. But I do think that putting the punishments next to the offenses in the TOS would serve more purpose. That is, if the bit that said spamming is not allowed told you what could happen if your caught spamming. It'd be far more impartial (as it's not mentioning specifics) and conveys the same information in an easier way to read.

The records does no show tolerance- if thats your view of tolerance I'm genuinly concerned. That list is far too biased to be anything of the sort.

What doesn't matter to some, matters a great deal to others. Maybe I am taking this too seriously, but it is my beleif that once someones punishment to an offence has been adminstered (in this case, once the ban has expired) that the individual punished should be forgiven, and not have these offences shoved down there throat like this. To me, this is a fairly big thing, I don't think it's right on a moral level. I'm not saying it's like juggling babies over fire pits, but it still strikes me as wrong.

-Ric, Double-J, I read practically everything on the forum. I don't see how my posting history has anything to do with this.

[Kitarii]

Is this like a pride thing, that you can't let it go?

Newsflash:

Nobody cares.

The only person this thread bothers is you, which certainly puts you in the minority. We've agreed the evaluation of the situation should be more general and not include any person feelings about the subject, but it is history that comes with the forum, and generally the members here like it. And even if you read everything, you contribute very little. Which is fine, but it doesn't give you much right to complain about the way everything works here.

Argh.

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by CiB

Now, I agree that it could be useful to people who feel they've been unfairly punished. But I do think that putting the punishments next to the offenses in the TOS would serve more purpose. That is, if the bit that said spamming is not allowed told you what could happen if your caught spamming. It'd be far more impartial (as it's not mentioning specifics) and conveys the same information in an easier way to read.

Beyond my opinion being wholly concurrent with Ric's above post, I do agree with you on this particular issue. But it you peruse my infractions thread (which I linked to earlier), I proposed a similar system before, and it was unilaterally rejected.

And, as far as tolerance - many forums that ban you? You're gone forever. I don't think we've ever perma banned anyone here, outside of Bifter, and spambot/sockpuppets.

That is tolerance, AFAIK.

[LBAWinOwns]

So you think public schools should not mention Hitler?

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by LBAWinOwns

So you think public schools should not mention Hitler?

What does that have to do with anything mentioned here?

[LBAWinOwns]

Bifter did bad things in the past and we teach out what happened. The same goes for Hitler, so other peoples mistakes should be noted and taught out, so other people see what flaming can result in.

A clearer example would be for new people to the forum to realize that flaming can get you banned even if you are an oldie, by seeing how Anakin did flame. If we would remove the record from the public, they maybe won't realize the consequences of flaming.

[Kitarii]

I think LBAWO was talking to CiB.
It was all a bit of a mystery for everyone, be more clear sir!

[LBAWinOwns]

Yes it was to CiB, and I who usually nag on people to make it clear who you speak too .

What I mean is history is taught for a reason, so the mistakes done in the past should not reoccur, by holding records of previously banned people new members (or we) can get reminded of that flaming in the forums will result in ban.